Gay marriage reminds us to never say 'never'

The success of gay activists and their allies shows that politics doesn't have to be about accepting reality. It can also mean changing it. Same sex marriage reminds us how quickly the impossible can become inevitable, writes Jeff Sparrow.

At the beginning of the 20th century an American civil engineer named John Elfreth Watkins wrote in the Ladies Home Journal on what his countryman might expect 100 years into the future.

He explained, for instance, that in the 21st century packages would eventually be delivered directly to houses by a system of 'pneumatic tubes', in a neat (albeit steam-powered) anticipation of the internet.

But despite his confidence in the wonders to come, Watkins didn't predict one of the most remarkable developments now taking place in the US at the moment.

That is, the US Supreme Court is currently deliberating on gay couples' constitutional right to marry. Irrespective of the result, the case exemplifies the momentum of same sex marriage all over the world.

As Glenn Greenwald writes, "It's conventional wisdom that national gay marriage is inevitable; the tipping point has clearly been reached."

Supporters of gay rights seem, for the first time, moderate, while their opponents look flustered and irrational, stumbling for words as their former vocabulary increasingly sounds bigoted and hateful.

Watkins got a lot of things right, anticipating colour photographs transmitted from any distance, refrigerators keeping food fresh for weeks, and a communication system in which intercontinental conversations became as simple as local ones. But he couldn't have predicted evolving attitudes to sexuality, if only for the reason that no polite magazine would have published him if he did.

Back then, respectable people saw same sex relations as an affront to the laws of God – and, just as importantly, the laws of men. Every state recognised homosexuality as a serious felony, in codes that only began to change in 1962 (and even then very slowly).

Homophobia seemed as American as apple pie. No less a figure than Thomas Jefferson penned a statute in which sodomy would be punished by castration, a law only rejected because the colonists chose to retain the death penalty instead.

Today, by contrast, the latest polls suggest support for gay marriage in the USA runs at 53-39. Opposition now comes overwhelmingly from the old. Even among Republicans under 50, a majority backs reform, so much so that same-sex rights might well become a wedge issue against (rather than for) the GOP.

All of this is worth pondering here in Australia, at a time when prospects for progressives can seem bleak.

It's not just that Tony Abbott seems almost certain to take residence in the Lodge. It's also that, whoever is in power, the range of political options seems extraordinarily narrow.

Think about the abortive showdown over the Labor leadership, in which neither side made its case on the basis of ideas. Or, rather, they campaigned on the same, very conservative ones. Insofar as Rudd's supporters publicised a political critique of the administration, it amounted to a declaration that Labor must abandon its hostility to business.

Meanwhile, Gillard appointed as Minister for Energy Resources a former vocal climate skeptic who says he's 'close' to the resources industry.

It's easy, then, to despair - or to conclude that the only possibilities are those represented by today's crop of 'small target' politicians. But same sex marriage reminds us how quickly the impossible can become inevitable.

When Prime Minister Gillard announced her personal opposition to marriage reform, the decision no doubt seemed the pragmatic option, a way of placating conservative allies.

Today, with Barack Obama (and even, some say, the Queen) endorsing calls for change, Gillard's clearly put herself on the wrong side of history.

"[T]ime is on the side of the outcast," the flamboyant gay pioneer Quentin Crisp once wrote. "Those who once inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their address they eventually live in the metropolis."

But it's not just a matter of patience. The shift in attitude to same sex marriage, and to homosexuality more generally, comes after an immensely courageous struggle, commenced back when reform must have seemed well nigh impossible. As recently as 1997, Tasmania still listed homosexuality as a crime.

For much of the 20th century, those who agitated for change did so in the face of the indifference, disdain or hostility of most of the establishment.

The success of gay activists and their allies shows that politics doesn't have to be about accepting reality. It can also mean changing it.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times reprinted an old essay in which the futurologists of 1988 predicted life in 2013. Once more, the experts discussed all kinds of technological marvels, from automated housekeeper robots to 'electro lanes' on the highway. But there's not a word about the redefinition of marriage – presumably because, even then, gay weddings seemed more fantastical than the robotic pet dogs we were all supposed to own.

In this bleak political season, it's vital to remember that alternatives are possible, that the certitudes of today will, one day, look as silly as predictions from the past.

Brecht puts it nicely:

Whoever is still alive must never say 'never'!Certainty is never certain.It will not stay the way it is.

Jeff Sparrow is editor of Overland literary journal. View his full profile here.

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.